About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
it as enemy combatant, military court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going
bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he sounds like pam gellar. might as well grow some gigantic boobs. >> stephanie: run-on sentence please, for
senators includes lindsey graham called for. senator graham challenged them saying the decision they made premature. let's listen. >> here's my concern. as a lawyer for over 30 years, civilian and military, i strongly support the concept that no criminal defendant should ever be required to incriminate themselves while they're in custody of the government. every nation at war should have the ability to defend themselves by gathering intelligence. these are not mutually exclusive concepts. i believe our nation is at war. the enemy is radical islam defined as the taliban, al qaeda, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named, to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston? >> let's drill down on the legal status of the boston bombing suspect. kendall coffey. the great jonathan turley, here in washington. thank you for this. can they decide later if a piece of evidence shows up a week from now, that shows a connection, e-mail, whatever, connection with al qaeda,
is one way to achieve something but, what we're trying to achieve, what lindsey graham, and kelly ayotte are trying to achieve, that is the most important thing. our priority here should be, i think, not to punish these perpetrators. not to prosecute them. not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose right now should be, we have somebody in custody who may know of other terrorist plots of other terrorist cells, who has information that may save lives and prevent future bombings. the question is, can we get that information from him, or are we going to do i think what now has been done, tell him he has the right to remain silent and we're going to remain ignorant of the information he has even if that means other people will be killed in terrorist attacks in the future. this is a decision we've made. i think it is a mistaken decision to say we're going to remain ignorant and we're not going, we're going to let him have the right to remain silent, aside from all the prosecution, aside from all other issues. we're remaining ignorant by choice. >> host: here are headlines. "washington post" sa
's some talk in washington, senator lindsey graham among others, saying that he should be treated as an enemy combatant, at least for a time, to get as much information as they can during the investigation. what's your feeling on that? >> well, i think, first of all, you need the right facts in order to be able to charge that. the federal government is still determining what was the motive of these two young men. are they connected to anybody else? until they do that work, until we finish this investigation, that question may even be premature, unless you have a basis for it. i do think that the federal government has had a good track record in civil cases here, understanding what forum people should be in in order to get the best information. but i think we have to be confident. i am, having worked with them this week, is that they're focused on getting information they need to bring the appropriate charges. they can always be updated. and i think that they will make the right decision based upon what they know about this investigation. >> we heard from the boston police commissi
senator lindsey graham, specifically from senator john mccain for the suspect to be treated as an enemy combatant. how is legal action at this point most likely to move forward? >> reporter: well, the obama administration would never go for that, partly as a policy matter. they have made it quite clear that civilian courts are up to the task and they think in many ways better than military tribunals which are untested. civilian courts have convicted lots of terrorism defendants. it will be a federal case. they'll charge him withes with use of a weapons of mass destruction. the maximum penalty is the death penalty. the government will have to decide whether to seek that or not. there's an additional wrinkle here. he is an american citizen. he was a naturalized citizen last year oddly on 9/11 of last year, and there is an open legal question about whether even if the government wanted to, it could declare an american citizen captured on u.s. soil as an enemy combatant. it's an untested question. the government tried to do it in the case of jose padilla several years ago and as that case w
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)